regarding "just plain works" as a goal

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 16:46, Leo Mauler
> <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > nicely for multimedia and applications, they 
> > will agree that Linux can resurrect allegedly
> > "obsolete" hardware.
> 
> Right.  And so can Windows 98.

No, no it can't.  Ubuntu 8.04.1 runs nicely on a PIII-1Ghz (actually I have it running on a PII-600Mhz as well) and has *current* updates.  Windows98 has *no current updates*, so it will be pwned the instant it connects to the Internet.

Also, software isn't current for Windows98 like it is for Linux.  With Linux the end user merely needs to access a software repository for current software (or create a download script for a friend's broadband connection, see P.S. at the bottom of this message).  The Windows98 user must hunt through EBay and used computer stores and junk bins at software sellers to find hopelessly outdated software.

Windows98 cannot be used to resurrect allegedly "obsolete" hardware precisely because Windows 98 *is* obsolete, unlike the hardware it ran on.

> Old hardware is garbage.  Garbage is 
> faster today than it was a year ago.  

To paraphrase the old proverb, "Billy Crook's garbage is everyone else's treasure."

Or, if you read to the very end of this email reply, paying close attention to what Billy Crook says about old hardware, "Billy Crook's garbage is *also* Billy Crook's treasure."

> Thanks for comparing Linux to Windows 98.

I never did.  You did, most inadequately.

> It can run fast on old hardware too, and you're 
> just cementing the idea in the heads of the public 
> that Linux is what you put on garbage computers 
> before the trash collector comes to haul them off.
> That's progress.  Thanks.  I don't even think 
> there's a need for this public PR campaign any 
> more.  Microsoft has done a better job than any 
> of us could at making Linux look good.

You may recall there's this thing being called a "banking and credit crisis" happening right now.  Lots of companies are freaking that for the next few years they may not be able to buy new computers (or in your words, upgrade their "garbage") because they will have no credit to borrow against.  Thanks to Microsoft Vista, the only way to "upgrade" to the only new OS they know about is to buy new computers.  So they, in their own minds, cannot upgrade right now.

People need to realize that that currently-owned business computers which run sluggishly on Windows XP/Vista will fly on Linux and be safe from modern threats (unlike Windows98).

What you don't seem to realize is that if someone sees a PIII-1Ghz machine run faster on Linux than their P4-3.0Ghz dual-core machine runs on Vista, the above average level of intelligence of an ITEC attendee means they will probably make the leap of logic saying that a P4-3.0Ghz machine would run considerably faster on Linux than on Vista.

> > While some ITEC attendees might figure out how to
> > dual-boot their existing system to explore Linux, 
> > most of them will balk at dual-booting their main 
> > system.  What I aim to do is show them that the 
> > 10 year old 1Ghz system in their closet (or the 
> > $25 1Ghz systems on Craigslist) could be restored 
> > as a Linux training system or child's computer.  
> > That will get them using Linux.
> 
> Not when they have a REAL computer already on their 
> desk

Right now everyone is worried about money.  There are still FUD trolls out there talking about Linux trashing hard drives.  No company is going to spend new money buying a new machine to test Linux on, and no company is going to want to risk trashing (real fears or not) an existing, working PC system just to save a few bucks on Linux.

If I show them a modern machine, they are going to think in terms of modern machine prices, then think of the fact that their bank won't lend them any more money, and thus continue to use their existing Windows OS setups.  If I show them they can test out Linux on a PIII-1Ghz machine, and even use it as a production machine in some circumstances, they're going to be able to afford the $50 at the Surplus Exchange for a PIII-1Ghz machine (as of October 2nd, 2008).

I thought I might plug the Surplus Exchange while I'm at ITEC as well, they are an *actual* non-profit and do have great prices on older machines suitable for trying out Linux, as well as training classes helping teenagers learn how to build and maintain PCs.

Whether or not a computer is REAL is an entirely subjective opinion, as you seem to agree with despite emphatically insisting that "garbage" computers have no use and wouldn't be wanted by anyone for anything, especially not by Billy Crook, no, not even as a WAN/router box.

> Show them Linux on a MODERN machine.  It is NOT 
> what you put on old garbage.  It is what you replace 
> Vista with when you need to get work done.

Full agreement with the "replace Vista" concept, but if I show up with a P4-3.0Ghz dual-core machine and run Linux, people may be tempted to think that the PC, not the OS, is what is causing it to fly.  If they see a PIII-1Ghz system fly on Linux, they have to admit that the OS choice has more to do with it than the hardware, because most of them will have used a PIII-1Ghz system running Windows.

> > The main system can come later.
> 
> Yeah, by your plan, it will come ten years later 
> when it's in the closet, and there's another new 
> system on the desk.  

And the new system would be running Linux, of course, because the end user had been playing with Linux for ten years.  "Test machine now, main machine later" is how I approached it 10 years ago, and the reason why I think that this reasoning works is that it worked on *me* (though no doubt much faster these days: the instant Ubuntu Linux came along, it made me drop Windows as a production OS almost instantly).

> And the other ten year old software [Windows98] 
> plays "all those cool retro DOS games" (without 
> quirks).

Personally I'd consider "having hundreds of unpatched security holes WHICH WILL NEVER BE PATCHED" at the very least a "quirk", if not "a reason to run away screaming".

> If you want to make a statement, bring two,
> identical new computers in.  Wipe Vista off 
> one of them, and have them doing the same 
> things, with a cpu/memory utilization meter
> always on top.

That would TOTALLY RUIN THE POINT of the KCLUG booth.  After all, Linux can *stand on its own*.  If we constantly engage in Microsoft bashing, we look like the fringe "nutritional supplement" industry which uses doctor-bashing and medicine-bashing as a sales pitch: "use our products, not necessarily because they're better but because all the other products are EVIL!"

Frankly I think that Linux can stand on its own, without all the Microsoft bashing.  We do a lot of M$-bashing here, because we're all Linux converts here (and some of us still support Microsoft products), but out there on the ITEC Exhibitor floor the focus needs to be on informing people about what Linux can do, not that Microsoft is evil.  The attendees have to build, maintain, and service Microsoft already, they already know that Microsoft is evil and do not need reminding.  What they don't know is what Linux can do, or something else that Linux can do that they didn't know yet which would make them seriously consider using Linux.

I have been bringing a "Why Not Use Linux" tri-fold pamphlet to ITEC for the past few years, designed on OpenOffice.org and printed from a Linux machine, which describes Linux in glowing terms while avoiding any reference whatsoever to any other OS.  People need to be told about Linux and what it can do for them.  They do not need to be told Microsoft is evil (this is self-evident information ;-) ).
 
> > I think an attendee who has ever had to upgrade
> > his or her PC <snip>
> 
> I really couldn't wait until the end of that line. 
> I'm serious.  I had to stop right here to ask What?  
> Where have you been?  People don't upgrade their PCs.
> Maybe we do, but the rest of the world does not.  
> I've looked at what ITEC cost to attend, and what
> was on the schedule, and it sounded to me like 
> corporate IT middle management.  

Regarding the ITEC "cost to attend", the really high prices are for the Exhibitors, not the Attendees.  The Attendees (before I started getting in as a KCLUG Exhibitor, I was also an Attendee) can get in for *free*.  I still get E-mails from the ITEC promoter telling me that the Exhibitor Floor ITEC (plus some free seminars) can still be had for *free*.  The folks going to the seminars are most likely the IT department people, with any extra paid seminar costs paid for by their companies.

So we are talking to the IT department employees, the IT guys for small businesses and government agencies, and the IT guys who work contracts for consulting agencies, and mostly not the middle management, when we speak to ITEC attendees.  One of my oldest friends is the IT guy for the Kansas City School For The Blind: his employer can't afford expensive seminar fees, but since basic ITEC admission is free, he attends ITEC every year.

> [Corporate IT middle management] don't open the 
> computer.  They don't upgrade windows.  They buy 
> another computer with 'the new windows' on it.

No, they pay an IT department to do mysterious things with computers.  The IT department also attends ITEC, you know, and they're handed a budget by middle management and told to make the most of it.  Expecting that the IT people always tell the truth, when doing exactly what middle management thinks they want to happen would be so much more expensive than the existing budget, is somewhat naive on your part.

IT departments are successful when the end user has no idea what the IT department does.  This can cause problems for the IT department later on, when bean-counters think that the IT budget can be cut because "the computers run so well we don't need such a high IT budget", but the fact is that the less middle management knows about the operation of the IT department, the better for the entire company.

> </snip>because Microsoft added more bloat to 
> > their Windows OS and he or she got sick of 
> > the older hardware system slowdowns, will 
> > be impressed with how Linux runs so fast 
> > on a PIII-1Ghz machine.
> 
> When windows users are sick of the slowdowns, 
> they call Geek Squad, or buy a new one.

Yes, but we're not talking to "most Windows users" here, as you yourself pointed out just a few paragraphs ago.  We're speaking to the IT departments.  The middle management (or in fact any other non-technical Windows users) aren't really involved here.

> I have NEVER been impressed on how Linux ran 
> on old hardware.  Maybe that's just because I 
> use it on modern machines on a daily basis 
> though.

And you aren't everyone in the world.  In some ways, be glad of that.  ;-)

> Listen to this carefully, because it is important.
> NOBODY WANTS the old computer in the closet/basement.

Because the only OS option they know about is Windows OS.  Don't try to use "hatred of Windows" as your "proof" of "hatred of old hardware."

> It's there because they're afraid trash pickup will 
> bill them for hazardous waste disposal.

Because they don't know a useful way of using it in their home, because they only know about Windows.  Again, you are erroneously claiming the effects of "hatred of Windows" are actually the effects of "hatred of old hardware."

> So what old hardware I use, I use for WAN 
> networking/firewall and proxy hosts, because 
> that, it can keep up with.

So, what you are saying is that *you* WANT the old computer in the closet/basement?  Aren't you just cementing the idea in the heads of the public that Linux is what you put on garbage computers before the trash collector comes to haul them off?  Isn't Linux NOT 
what you put on old garbage?  Aren't you NEVER impressed on how Linux runs on old hardware?

It is rather silly that you went on for several paragraphs insisting that people should not be informed that Linux is what you put on garbage computers, and that people will not find Linux on garbage computers to be useful, and then informed everyone that *you* put Linux on garbage computers and feel that Linux on garbage computers can be useful to end users.

========================
P.S.  It occurred to me just now (honestly forgot) that I'm typing this entire message on the demo PC (with its 15" monitor), the Ubuntu Linux 8.04.1 PIII-1Ghz machine, while using it to listen to music and download updates for a friend's Linux PC which has no high-speed Internet (Synaptic "download scripts" are nice).  This system is most definitely not "garbage" and still has a lot of use left on it with Linux, use it would most definitely not have under Windows 98.
========================